22 is the more speci c section of the Student Code that clearly indicates where the prohibited misconduct must occur, it controls. Every application of a text to particular circumstances entails interpretation. In determining whether a con ict between Article 20 and Article 22 exists and how to resolve any such con ict, it is useful to consider certain fundamental principles of statutory interpretation. When we deal with cases involving enactments of the legislature, the most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs, if that intent can be ascertained. Bergstrom v. Spears Manufacturing Co., 289 Kan. 605, 607, 214 P.3d 676 (2009). An appellate court must rst attempt to ascertain legislative intent through the statutory language enacted, giving common words their ordinary meanings. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906, 918, 296 P.3d 1106 (2013). When a statute is plain and unambiguous, an appellate court does not speculate as to the legislative intent behind it and will not read into the statute something not readily found in it. In re Tax Appeal of Burch, 296 Kan. 713, 722, 294 P.3d 1155 (2013). But when the statute's language is ambiguous, appellate courts can employ canons of construction to construe the legislature's intent. Northern Natural Gas Co., 296 Kan. at 918. Keeping these principles in mind, the claimed con icts between the Student Code can be resolved. A careful reading of the plain language of the Student Code clari es where the student conduct that is subject to discipline must occur. The University argues that the Article 20 phrase “or as otherwise required by federal, state or local law” nulli es the language preceding it which indicates that it can only institute disciplinary proceedings for conduct “on University premises or at University sponsored or supervised events.” The University suggests that the “or” must be read disjunctively rather than conjunctively. Basically, this argument means Article 20 is simply making a list of separate alternatives. Clearly, there are no words in the last phrase of the sentence that mentions where these violations of other laws may occur to be punishable. The phrase is merely a reference to the laws that could be violated. This portion of Article 20 is a series of “or's,” joining phrases of equal stature: “on University premises or at University sponsored ․ or supervised events ․ or as otherwise required by federal law․” (Emphasis added.) The sentence makes a list of alternatives. There is nothing in the language of the article, or the punctuation, that compels us to hold that the last “or” in this series should be read any differently than those that come before it. Our interpretation, which adds no language to the Article, creates no ambiguity here. The intent is clear. If there is a violation of some federal, state, or local law not speci ed in the Student Code that occurs on University premises or at University sponsored or supervised events, the University can institute disciplinary proceedings against the offender. This interpretation is consistent with Article 18 of the Student Code. Other authorities can prosecute violations of those laws that occur elsewhere. The “other” authority here, of course, was the Johnson County District Attorney ling charges against Yeasin for his deplorable treatment of W. If we construed Article 20 as the University wants, we must insert words to the effect “for conduct wherever committed.” The phrase then becomes, “or as otherwise required by federal, state, or local law for conduct wherever committed.” If that is what the drafters of the Student Code meant, the article could have been written in that fashion. Unlike the preceding language in Article 20, the phrase “or as otherwise required by federal, state or local law” does not specify where the conduct subject to disciplinary proceedings under federal, state, or local law must have occurred to be punishable by the University. Furthermore, Article 20 is one of three articles located in section 16 of the Student Code entitled, “Privacy.” This section deals with matters of con dentiality, not jurisdiction. Article 19 advises students that they surrender none of their privacy rights by joining the University. Article 21, in turn, deals extensively with the private nature of educational records and how the University will treat them. Within the context of privacy concerns, Article 20 advises students of procedural limitations. If its purpose was to establish when the University may institute disciplinary action or enunciate the University's jurisdiction, it lacks any heading to that effect. If that was the intended purpose, it would have been placed with or included in Article 18 in the section of the Student Code entitled, “Violation of Law and University Discipline.” × Stayalso up to date the latest on thebylaw! We must point out with that the phrase “required law” does not even attempt to list what type of conduct that is subject to federal, state, or local law, is being regulated, or by a rming that the conduct relates in some way to the University's Title IX policies. University vainly tries to pile all of this onto a phrase that is simple and straightforward. Subscribe Please The enter your email address By submittingcourts this form,strive you agree FindLaw.com's (https://www. ndlaw.com/company/ ndlaw-terms-of-service.html). We a view of reconciling and bringing Appellate totogive effect, ifterms possible, to the various provisions of an entire act with respect your privacy (https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/privacy-statement.html). the provisions into workable harmony. Northern Natural Gas Co., 296 Kan. at 918. The University's argument that Article 20 This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Policy (https://policies.google.com/privacy) and wherever Terms of Service suggests that the University may take Privacy disciplinary action for student conduct it occurs, when required by federal, state, or (https://policies.google.com/terms) apply. /